1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW image

[Ozarker]

Maybe it is just me, but the damsel looks to be lit from the camera side of the photo. I see a harsh shadow on her right moving towards the sun. Don't think this is a good example at all. Not at all.

Which shadows are being pushed? The ones behind her being lit by flash? (then no real need to lift from that side at all.) or the shadows in front of her being lit by the sun?

The flash is doing a great job of overpowering the sun here. Just look at that harsh shadow from flash on her right side along the ground.

Doesn't look right to me. There should be some soft shadow behind the model with interesting very soft shadows to accentuate her sensual curves.

In my opinion she is too lit for this snapshot to be an example of a photo showing an example of a camera's capabilities. Just my opinion.

 

[R1-7D]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III

I don't see it in this photo, but I probably don't have as much experience as you.

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

To be honest, the original looks much better. This just looks plastic.

 

[cpsico]

Maybe it is just me, but the damsel looks to be lit from the camera side of the photo. I see a harsh shadow on her right moving towards the sun. Don't think this is a good example at all. Not at all.

Good enough real world to get an idea of real world applications, not necessarily worse case scenario. The shot was about a stop under to start to maintain the warm golden sunset In this same setup a 5dII and 5dIII would have fared a good bit worse, the 6d is actually really good in this area.

Of course we have king of left the topic of the new 1dxII which looks amazing!!! And oddly enough has the same pixel count as the 6d which makes wonder if it's based on that sensor with new tech added on.

 

[cpsico]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

5d3 and 1dx was that bad at low iso anyway , not hard to do better. my old 1ds3 is so much better at low iso.

I'd love to see a side-by-side example.

Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

I have to agree 110 percent, the 6 is right there with the 1ds markIII, except I like the color of the older camera better. High iso the 6d is wonderful

Here is a sample of the nice shadow quality of the 1ds mark III

I don't see it in this photo, but I probably don't have as much experience as you.

I just lifted the shadows in photoshop 100 percent, not bad at all. Not quite a sony sensor but usable

To be honest, the original looks much better. This just looks plastic.

+1
I agree and hate the look of lifted shadows

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

...
Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

The 1Ds MkIII also had better/different color...

"Colour" is an entirely false idea when used like that, digital cameras and image files are not film, I have had absolutely no issues matching multiple Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras colours to my 1DS MkIII's colours when they have shot the same event.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Growing up on film, I find all this so entertaining.
My first DSLR was a 40D and was like using Tri-X and Ektachrome.
ASA 400 pushed to 1600 for night football games was kind of like the 40D at ISO 1600.
Fast forward through the 50D & 7D.
My 5D III comes close to my best days in 35mm, but The 5DS reminds me of my 4x5 days.
The real limit back then was two fold- lens quality and the film. If you wanted to enlarge to anything over 8x10, Panatomic-X or Kodachrome was best.

Today, most any DSLR is incredibly good compared to my film days.
DNR is all the talk, but frankly, I am very pleased with what I can achieve with my Canons.
To me, when you look at your subject and the camera can reproduce what your brain processed, it's game over.
Currently, HDR is the only way I can close the gap.
Getting a look at raw files from the 1DX II will be interesting.
I will never miss carrying around a bunch film holders, boxes of film, the changing bag, and flash bulbs.

 

[kkelis]

Shouldn't the 1dx mkii be cheaper if i doesn't need an exposure meter anymore?

 

[GuyF]

The link is now dead??

Jack

Yup, on the original site Martin Kozak states (via Google translate), "Update: Comparison image I decided (perhaps only temporarily) to download, but the conclusion above applies".

Looks like the dude decided Canon's warning not to post full size RAW or JPEG has made him change his mind.

 

[cpsico]

Re: 1DX Mark II underexposed and pushed 5 stops from RAW imag

...
Yes, I am very interested to see 1DS MkIII and 1DX MkII comparative RAW samples at low iso. The 6D is the only file I have used so far from Canon that has the low ISO RAW quality the old 1DS MkIII has, but l want the 1 series feature set and improved base IQ before I replace my 1DS Mkiii's.

The snippets we have had so far from the 1DX MkII certainly look promising...........

Would it be fair to say the 1ds mark III has better out of camera color without need for adjustment? I am excited to see some 1dx mark II samples and comparisons

The 1Ds MkIII also had better/different color...

"Colour" is an entirely false idea when used like that, digital cameras and image files are not film, I have had absolutely no issues matching multiple Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras colours to my 1DS MkIII's colours when they have shot the same event.

 

[tpatana]

I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?

 

[privatebydesign]

I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?

I'd start by moving the Exposure slider five stops to the right, that is all the way.

 

[3kramd5]

I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?

I'd start by moving the Exposure slider five stops to the right, that is all the way.

The exposure slider in the current and recent versions of LR is not linear. +1 doesn't not necessarily equal +1 stop.

Edit: my mistake, with LR6/CC Adobe now claims equivalence.

 

[cpsico]

I repeat my question, what sliders I need to move on LR and how much to achieve 5 stop push on shadows?

It was the entire image he raised 5 stops, not just shadows

 

[mclaren777]

http://www.martinkozak.com/2016/02/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-prvni-dojmy/

Chrome will translate that page into English fairly well.

 

[tpatana]

Ok, just tried +5 exposure on one of the recent pics with 1DX.

First one no edits, seconds one +5 (and nothing else), third one the earlier edit I had on that pic.

 

[deleteme]

My biggest use of more DR will be for wildlife photos where I can underexpose by a couple of stops getting faster shutter speed.

Even with the improved DR you will still get better images with just increasing the ISO in the camera. As already written in the second post: the noise of ISO 100 pushed to ISO 3200 looks like for a native setting of ISO 6400. So an equally bright image taken with native ISO 3200 will have less noise.
It's just useful when you have accidentally underexposed, so the losses will be less compared to images taken with less DR, and if you can't increase the ISO to save highlights while you don't want to or can not (moving subject, no tripod) use bracketing.

Totally agree. More DR is welcome but in truth none of my images have suffered as a result of the current tech. If I have a scene where shadow detail is important I just overexpose a bit and bring down the highlights very nicely.

 

[PureClassA]

Those jpgs someone posted a week ago looked pretty impressive. This is even more notable. I have never had problems lifting shadows (except on certain particular occasions) I need on any of my Canon gear. What is encouraging about this is shooting low light/rapidly changing light at dance recitals with $100k of theatrical lighting LEDs going crazy. Even shooting in Auto ISO and pegging my aperture and shutter speed, the 1DX (and ANY camera would) can get easily "fooled" quite frequently. The camera will meter and by the time I've fired the stage lighting in my field of view radically shifts and bang, unexposed by a couple stops. Obviously not the camera's fault per se, but it's just a fact of shooting fact paced, live action, under wild theatrical stage lighting. That being said, the 1DX2 ability to push shadows even more (perhaps another 2 stops with what MUST be much cleaner high ISOs than even before) could really add a lot more flexibility in that situation. I realize that's highly specialized, but just my two cents. Attached a couple shots of last year's work so you can see what I'm talking about with these lights and fog. (I was TRYING to silhouette the that shot. That's not underexposed) The active LED 12 foot by 30 foot LED walls are a real pain in the butt... You have no clue what that does to metering...

PS - Would a sony give me more latitude? Probably. Would an A7 body be able to AF track these girls? Not a chance.

 

[Jokke_r]

There's plenty of use for pushing 5 stops, if only to save highlight detail. I was shocked when shooting some 6x7 Portra 160 some years ago over how much greater the highlight retention is on color negative.

Here's an example Top one is Portra 160 and underneath it is a digital reference shot from the same scene exposed the same as the film (I actually used the 5D mark II to meter for the Mamiya RB67 which lacks metering)
Now a case can be made that you shouldn't expose digital like color negative, of course that is right, i should have underexposed to save the highlights and then push the shadows up in post. But this only works so far. There's a million contrasty lighting situations that film will handle with ease and produce beautiful tones, while digital will clip the highlights or crush the shadows into oblivion. One other annoying thing is how digital completely screws up with colored lights, they just burn through and end up white for the most part, look at the traffic light, it should retain its red color but even in daylight digital manages to clip it to white, let alone at night. Film is especially good at retaining the integrity of highlight colors, even in the dark a bright red light will remain red, just look at any tv-show or movie shot on film, and rear lights on cars shine true red in dark scenes, and in modern shows and movies shot on digital they pretty much always are completely white with only a red glow retained, this is a symptom of poor dynamic range.

Thankfully with Magic-lantern and the Dual-ISO feature i've been able to extend the usable dynamic range tremendously for the past few years, it's extremely tricky to process it in order for it to not look artificial but it's a lot better than shooting with stock canon 12 stop DR. I attached a ML dual ISO high contrast image also.

Would you look at that, an actual digital sunset image where the actual sun and its surroundings aren't overexposed to hell with horrible color shifts. You can actually perfectly make out the disk of the sun and there's a perfect gradation from there, just like back in the film days. This was achieved in a single exposure thanks to magic lantern, this particular picture could not have been achiever with multi shot HDR because of the motion of the waves etc, not even the specular highlights on the waves are overexposed and the rocks on the beach aren't under exposed.

 

[kfreels]

Silly me. I've been trying to get the proper exposure when I could have been underexposing and recovering in post. Not sure why someone would do this on purpose, even with landscapes. Is Canon's DR really that bad?

No, Their DR isn't that bad. But such an improvement would be welcome. While my daughter was in high school I would shoot my daughter and her friends in the color guard a lot. The evening performance were always a lot of trouble. They were too far away to shoot the close-ups they liked so much with a prime. So an f2.8 zoom was as good as I could get. The shutter speed HAD to be at 1/500 or faster or they would blur while leaping, waving flags, spinning and tossing rifles, etc. They were too far away for a flash to work - especially since only HSS will work at 1/500 and the range on that is crap. So being locked in at 1/500 and f2/8, I often ended up at ISO 3200 which was a far different result than you could get at ISO 400. A 3 stop improvement would have drastically improved those shots.

When you look at all the night football games under the same lights, you can certainly start to understand why this would be introduced in the 1DX. Assuming it's accurate.

 

[et31]

Nikonites on the new D5's ISO 3,276,800 sensor with native range of ISO 50-102,400: "We got this!"